740.00119 E.W./11–745
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
Paris, November
7, 1945—8 p.m.
[Received November 8—4:15 p.m.]
[Received November 8—4:15 p.m.]
6488. From Angell No. 37. For Departmental distribution only. Following are further comments and background interpretation of [Page 1375] certain aspects of the development of the reparation share problem reported in my No. 36 of Nov. 7 [8].7
- 1.
- I am greatly encouraged by the substantial measure of agreement which has been reached in a very short time among the British, French and American reparation representatives. There has been a marked disposition on the part of each of the three delegations to approach this problem with a conciliatory and objective attitude and with an effort to give full weight, not only to the claims of the other two major powers, but also to the position of the 14 smaller nations who will convene with us beginning Nov. 9. I believe that, unless the home govts of the tri-partite representatives raise objections, it is probable that the general conference of Nov. 9 will be able to proceed with its work unimpeded by any substantial disagreement among the three sponsoring powers. I believe that the agreement which we have tentatively reached is in substantial accordance with my instructions as set forth in the Repmems. I hope that the Dept will weigh carefully these factors in the situation before sending me instructions which would create a need for a lengthy reexamination of the problems by the tri-partite representatives at this late date.
- 2.
- With reference to the percentages suggested in my telegram under reference, it should be emphasized that these shares are of a tentative nature. If the results of the 17–power discussions point to the conclusion that smaller powers should have a somewhat larger share of reparations, this could possibly be accomplished by transfer of a few percentage points from the shares of the sponsoring powers.
- 3.
- With reference to the shares in external assets in the neutral countries, I and my staff are in agreement that the inclusion of the small countries provides an opportunity for bringing more forcefully to the attention of neutral countries the justice and equity of the proposed disposition of these German assets. It is apparent that the diplomatic approach of the three major powers to the neutrals will be strengthened if the beneficial interest, no matter how small in the case of the other individual countries, is widespread and encompasses a large percentage of the United Nations. Waley and Rueff fully concur with this position. It is not contemplated, of course, that there would be any modification of the general plan to have the diplomatic approach made by the three large powers, but rather that supporting action by the 14 other claimants guided by the major powers can be of important auxiliary assistance. Such action might, for example, include a declaration of the 17–power conference at Paris and informal support by the individual powers. [Angell.]
Caffery
- Not printed.↩